Talk:Port Hanshan
Article Subject matter Please everybody be mindful not to go off topic in articles. For example, this article is about the city of Port Hanshan, which is the capital of Noveria, not about Noveria itself. Information about climate, planetary containment protocols, etc belong in the Noveria article. Thanks.SpartHawg948 01:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :Sorry my fault, just was trying to modify the really ugly format that the thing was in, I just saw things and made them better. --Delsana 01:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Picture This article needs a picture that displays Port Hanshan, don't make the article sad (isn't the freezing cold torture enough?), hurry it up!!! --Delsana 01:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Wording Regarding the paragraph Even this oversight, however, is somewhat tenuous. The Administrator's office is a hotbed of graft, kickbacks and corruption, the only unbreakable rule being "don't rock the boat"., I wrote: :"changed somewhat odd sounding "oversight" to "office", at risk of repetition" but was reverted with: :"In the previous paragraph, it is mentioned that the port is "overseen" by the administrator, while the next describes the corruption, necessitating the word "oversight"- plus, office is repetitive" I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, especially as my choice of replacement was perhaps not the best, but I don't think reverting my edit was necessarily the most helpful approach: I would like to go on record as saying that "oversight" is confusing given that its normal usage means something else. Perhaps a minor point, but for the sake of clarity I think editors should have a bit more freedom to improve the articles' wording if necessary. But I think I'll let someone else deal with it as they see fit. --vom 20:38, November 18, 2009 (UTC) ::Actually I think that rollback was legit. The sentence refers to the oversight of Port Hanshan, not how tenuous the office is; which doesn't make sense, because the Administrator's post is not tenuous. It took a six month investigation to bring Anoleis down. ::Editors actually have a lot of freedom, but if an edit doesn't seem to make sense, that's a good reason for us to revert it. There is also a disclaimer at the bottom of every page saying that your writing will be mercilessly edited; reverts and rewrites will happen, and they happen to admins' edits too. Sorry. : ( --Tullis 20:44, November 18, 2009 (UTC) :::Well if anything it's proven that my choice of a replacement wasn't any better, since I meant... well, what you described, rather than what you thought I meant. Unfortunately my ability to choose the right word is often a bit rubbish, so I'm not the best person to wade into a "this needs changing" scenario. :::I understand the merciless editing aspect, in this case I think it just needed a little more consideration than an immediate reversion. Preferably by someone in possession of a bigger thesaurus than me. :) --vom 20:55, November 18, 2009 (UTC) ::::Also, please bear in mind that "normal usage" is highly subjective in cases in which words have multiple meanings. Nearly every time I use the word or hear it used in conversation is in the context of a person/group/organization having oversight/overseeing something. Also, as both Tullis and I stated, given that the previous paragraph describes how the Port is "overseen" by the administrator. This gives context for the use of oversight in the next paragraph, eliminating confusion, whereas substituting "office" totally changed the meaning of the sentence, and quite frankly made it somewhat nonsensical. As for freedom of editors, was I not also exercising my freedom by undoing an edit that didn't make sense? I don't undo edits unless I have a valid reason, and I generally include that reasoning in the edit summary, as I did in this case. SpartHawg948 22:32, November 18, 2009 (UTC) :::::I've tried to put my case forward for why I think the wording's not very clear; I'm sorry that it seems to have ended up turning into a battle of wits rather than an attempt to improve the article, which was all I'd aimed to do. --vom 23:26, November 18, 2009 (UTC) :::::Thanks for the rewording--that's what I was aiming for and missed. Now I think I'll crawl back under my rock for a while for fear of causing any more trouble. :o --vom 00:24, November 19, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Speaking of rewording, I think I'm gonna have to tweak it a bit. Sorry if I seem somewhat attached to the old version, but that one was adjusted and tweaked so many time to get there, and it was a nice piece of writing, and contextually there really wasn't a problem with oversight, as the context of the word was provided in the previous paragraph. I'm gonna remove however, as it implies a contradiction of a point or evidence made beforehand, which there isn't in this case. Sigh... such a beautiful piece of writing... oh well. SpartHawg948 02:26, November 19, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Plus, the new wording makes it sound like abuse of the position is an out of the ordinary thing, the exception to the rule, when this is of course not the case. It is made quite clear that corruption is expected in this position, as the previous version made clear. SpartHawg948 02:28, November 19, 2009 (UTC)